This is Vulpine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vulpine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Only 1mpg improvement? Pitiful. Reshape it nose to tail. Make it lower in stance and lower the roof. Narrow the body by AT LEAST six inches. Make it more streamlined... get rid of that slab-nosed look and taper it down to a smooth curve. All of these combine should improve economy by no less than 10% (more likely 20%) without having to stick an undersized, under-performing engine under the hood.
Second-best-looking mid-sizer on the market. Now if it were only as good under the hood. I don't trust a 2.3L turbo to hold up under a steady 7000# toad for many long runs; especially if any of those runs are on mountain highways.
Such tiny wheels under such a big truck. You know the truck is big because of the way it towers over the two guys assembling it in that photo. This is a sign that the trucks have truly grown too large for their purpose. There is no reason what-so-ever that they have to be that large, even for the capacities of hauling and towing that they claim.
"What about LNG? Go to the web and check out the OTR haulers running natural gas for regional deliveries. Saddle Creek Logistics for example." ---- Posted by: papajim --- lower specific power from CNG, usually seen as a significantly reduced fuel mileage in those vehicles (granted at a lower "price per gallon".) Great for local work but problematical for regional or long-distance work.
"Hydrogen fuell cell is NOT a good idea for transport trucks ... My money is on EV trucks such as Tesla semi". ---- Posted by: Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA I'm going to disagree with you, Cb. The fuel cell has an advantage in the Class 8; The tractor's big enough to carry enough conversion square footage to reach almost any power it may need--up to 1000 hp easy and possibly quite a bit more if necessary. Now, I'll grant a fuel cell isn't up to handling rapid changes in power levels; it's designed for steady-state output. But what it can do is feed a couple hundred kilowatt-hours in battery packs to handle the variability (and long grades) while the fuel cell keeps those batteries charged. You get the benefit of hydrogen for quick refueling and long range and the batteries for instant power and regenerative braking for speed control up and down mountain roads.
"The GM twins will perform very well against the Ranger. They will win the performance categories. I bet the ranger will ride slightly better bc its a newer truck" --- Posted by: TNTGMC --- That's a bet I'd almost be willing to take; the Colorado is a better-riding truck than I expected. And several places where my older trucks used to dance and wheel-hop due to seam repairs on the highway has the Colorado tracking like those seams don't even exist, though I can still feel them under my wheels.
"and another thing: A quick glance at the above photos makes it really clear WHO Ford was targeting with their new truck (and it ain't GM). The Tacoma is clearly in their sights because it's the sale leader, but also I'm guessing because the Tacoma is an easy 'target' for anybody who's over 5-7 and 175 pounds who wants a compact or midsize truck. As everybody has said repeatedly, the Taco is uncomfortable for normal size guys. "If Ford has produced a decently comfortable cabin in the new Ranger, it's a home run because American men (and women) have been getting bigger lately. Taller, heavier. Nobody wants to drop 40k on a pickup that is cramped and your knees are up around your ear lobes when you're out driving." ---- Posted by: papajim --- I can't agree about the comfort for "normal-sized guys." The Tacoma fits me well enough and I'm just below 6' at 200#. On the other hand, my wife IS 6' at about the same weight or so and simply put, the seat track isn't long enough for her--the wheel rubs her thighs, or has every time we've tried one on at the local auto show. The Colorado is a good fit with enough track for her to really stretch out if she wants. Now, I've already made my decision for multiple reasons, but I would like to give the Ranger a good workout sometime to see if it can really do as well as Ford claims.
Would love to get involved in an east-coast version of this testing. Now that I'm driving a '19 Z71 Colorado, I'd like to get into a head-to-head comparison of all the others.
Taking everything into account, it looks like a toss-up between the Ram and the GMC; they both have VERY new things coming online and both have other advantages. When it comes to appearances, the RAM has it all over the other two. Its lines are cleaner and it has dropped that fake Big Rig look, though it's still much too tall at the nose than is really necessary, even counting the big diesel and V8s that have to fit there. Add the 48V mild hybrid system and you see a notable improvement in fuel economy, especially in town. On the other hand, the Sierra has that unique tailgate which offers a lot of functionality. My personal concern is that it's not stout enough for long-term usage in that multi-function manner and if it is, that tailgate must be notably heavier than the others' more conventional tailgates. Using that tailgate as a step up into the bed is a clear indication that the truck has become too tall for easy access otherwise. So both have their possibilities and the differing technologies offered by each are what make them stand out. I think it will come down to which becomes the better value in the long run that will make it the winner. My personal pick is the RAM.
What would look nicer and probably be more functional is if that side step worked more like a miniature tailgate; simply push the top and let it fold out in the same way their gas caps do now. It wouldn't be that hard or any heavier, while cleaning up the side lines nicely when not in use.
"Ranger already looks outdated to me, but if it drives nice and is reliable comfortable and efficient that is all that should matter to most buyers. It's amazing how many people blindly buy the tacoma when there are much better alternatives for most people. I do think this will easily outsell the gm midsizers in the first year, but those tacoma buyers will blindly cling to their beloved mediocre truck to keep it number one in sales." ---- Posted by: beebe ---You forget, nearly ⅓ of the Taco's sales are former Ranger owners.
"'The engine offers the highest four-cylinder horsepower and gas-powered torque of any mid-size pickup' Talk about walking a tightrope to try and make it look better than it is." --- I don't doubt for a second that we'll see the GM 2.7L turbo in the C-twins next year.
The Rubi is going to price into the $50K+ range; the base model probably about $42K+.
Get rid of every part of that grille above the name tag. That would help the looks a lot. Angling the hood down to fill that space and lower the overall grille height would also improve fuel economy.
"your new pickup is an ample option for someone six feet tall." ---- Posted by: papajim --- My wife, at 6 feet tall, fit just fine in a Fiat 500 and absolutely loved that little car. "These trucks they're discussing in this article are suitable for folks a lot smaller than that. People who weigh 120-140 lbs Many parts of the western Pacific and Southeast Asia are populated with adults who weigh less than 150 lbs." --- You're making an assumption based on far too little data. Have you ever sat in one? Ever sit in a Fiat 500? Drive one? Neither my wife nor I weigh a mere 150# and yet a well-designed cabin can be remarkably roomy even for a 6'+ person. "That's half my size." --- So? "Fitting into a traditional compact truck like the Datsuns and Toyotas of the 1970s is an exercise I prefer to avoid." --- The newer vehicles are designed much better than the old ones. "My generation grew up with cars that could seat adults in either row of seats. I guess that colors my opinion" --- You also didn't wear your seatbelts either, now did you?
"Go rent the tiniest car you can, and drive it around for a weekend. That will cure you of any wish for a smaller pickup." ---- Posted by: papajim Ummmm... No, it won't. Even owning my current Colorado, I still feel it's far larger than necessary for the purposes to which I will put it. But I got tired of waiting for rumor to become fact.
"the OP said the rear end assembly looks similar to the1/2 ton Ram. So that means it comes with air suspension, which will be great. I have always had Jeeps of some kind, but will not be getting this one, unless it can tow 7k pounds like our GC and Colorado and carry 700 in the bed like my Colorado can and does." ---- Posted by: Dave --- Then you're in luck, since the official statements from Jeep claim a 7k+ towing capacity and somewhere in excess of 1300# payload capacity.
"A ext cab in a Wrangler pu is the worst compared to a standard fare cab. The reason is weight. Some of you little peanis guys should realise that a ext cab isn’t the best for everything." ---- Posted by: Jeff smith A) Learn how to spell; B) An extended cab is lighter than a crew cab; C) There has been no suggestion from Jeep that they're including a standard cab. Ergo, your whole argument is null and void.
"Looking at the bottom photo and I wonder if the actual production vehicles will have that large removable top? Where would you store it? It would take up the entire space of the box! Other than that I like it. Should take the thunder away from the 40 potential Ranger buyers. LOL" ---- Posted by: What The Heck --- A similar "large removable top" already exists in the Jeep Wrangler lineup and owners very literally don't care that they can't store it on/in the car; it's meant to be stored in the basement/garage during the warm months of the year. Obviously, you're not a Jeep person.
I'm in 'Wait and See' mode, now that I've made my choice. Personally, I don't think it will be as good as many expect but as a true light-duty truck (no towing) it will probably excel.
Personally, I like the idea of an extended cab, Wrangler-based, pickup; I'm just upset that they took so long to bring out any version, after teasing us back in '05. I'm not sure even now if they're going to offer an extended-cab version and I simply do not LIKE the concept of a full four-door version. And having anything more than 'jump seats' in the extended cab is a waste of space. When the supposedly open floor is already half-occupied by a permanent plinth just to support the seat cushion, you loose the ability to put a tool box or other larger object back there. At least GM gives the option of removing those seats, though you now lose the capability to carry a third and/or fourth person back there, too, when the need arises (no matter how rare that may be.) So. I like that they're finally producing it; I HOPE they offer an extended-cab version; but it's far too late for me, since I've made my decision and won't be buying again for at least 6-8 years, if that soon.
For nearly everything, I would agree with the judges that the Ram was probably the best • feeling • truck of the bunch; I've been quite surprised by just how good FCA's Jeep products have been over the last decade, despite the early issues caused by the former Daimler match-up. On the other hand, considering how much I like the feel of the Jeeps' brakes, I'm concerned about the Rams' coming across worse than the others, even if not by all that much. Where the judges claimed the Ram's brakes felt soft, the Jeep brakes are remarkably smooth and even, with very strong stopping power for their types. I honestly would have expected the RAM to have similar feel since, at least with the Wrangler Unlimited, the size and weight aren't all THAT much lower. I can state from first-hand experience that I like the FEEL of the FCA brakes better than my Colorado's as it is much easier to modulate the pressure for a smooth stop with little 'bounce' to the nose once stopped.
"Considering it takes GM eight models to Fords and Rams three I'm but surprised at all by these results." ---- Posted by: Dudlydooright I'll grant the GM "eight models", as long as you acknowledge that neither Ford nor Ram offer a "fourth model" each... yet. Ford starts selling that "fourth model" in January. But I will NOT grant the Ford "three models." Ford has no less than FIVE models, not even counting the multiple trim packages... more than any other brand. Sorry, but SuperDuty and HeavyDuty are effectively different models, even if they do ride on the 250 and 350 platforms. The one thing I'm surprised at is the fact that their value, at least for now, holds up pretty well; though I care nothing about CPO. Personally, I'm more interested in ROI, as I neither buy used if I can avoid it, nor do I trade on any kind of frequent basis, making that CPO statement irrelevant. Long-term reliability and durability are more important than how much more or less it will cost the next owner through CPO.
"Ironic how the people who yell the loudest about this tax are living in many countries that have blocked access to American industrial goods for decades. America's neighbor to the north has placed shocking taxes on our dairy products for decades." ---- Posted by: papajim Strange thing about that, PJ; I'm one of those complaining about the Chicken Tax, and I'm a born and bred American who's probably lived in more parts of this country than you. I saw what the Chicken Tax did to the small-truck industry and I'm still griping, 35 years after owning my first, truly compact, pickup.
"What does GM have to worry, they will get another illegal bailout and ignore our laws to get away with these failures! Tacoma wins again!" ---- Posted by: oxi Tacoma lost, at least where I'm concerned. Oh, the specs are all there, but neither the economy nor the driver's legroom were. I went Colorado.